Venables 'should be identified'

[tmcd35]

So you see prison as pure punishment? A system designed to make their lives a living hell, then release them after that time embittered and hateful towards society for treating them like that? ie. turning what could be a stupid mistake into a hardened criminal?

 

Or do you think that the prison system should be trying to rehabilitate these people (not talking about murderers), to change the course of their lives from one of crime to one where they actually help society?

 

I sincerely think that the correct answer is a balance somewhere between the two. I fear in recent decades we have, as a society, veered to far towards the later and away from the former.

 

The sentencing and conditions should be enough to act as a deterent in their own right. But once once committed then we should work to rehabilitate them. That does not mean TV's and Playstations in their cells though.

 

I think for someone proven to be correctly convicted of multiple murders through a rigorous appeals system should be put to death for their crimes. If life means life and they will never see the light of day again, then we are paying alot of the like of Peter Sutcliffe to sit in a cell watching Richard and Judy - hang him!

[localzuk]

I sincerely think that the correct answer is a balance somewhere between the two. I fear in recent decades we have, as a society, veered to far towards the later and away from the former.

 

The sentencing and conditions should be enough to act as a deterent in their own right. But once once committed then we should work to rehabilitate them. That does not mean TV's and Playstations in their cells though.

 

Agreed. It is a balance. The punishment in itself can act as part of the rehabilitation. Getting the balance right is the key.

 

I think for someone proven to be correctly convicted of multiple murders through a rigorous appeals system should be put to death for their crimes. If life means life and they will never see the light of day again, then we are paying alot of the like of Peter Sutcliffe to sit in a cell watching Richard and Judy - hang him!

 

Disagree. New technologies come out all the time which have proven someone's involvement or non-involvement in a crime, decades later. Look at DNA - it has been used in several cases, where there had been a rigorous appeals process, many decades after the conviction, to prove that the convicted person wasn't the culprit. There is always a chance the courts are plain wrong, and whilst that chance exists, I will never support the death penalty.

[6Foot2]

...then we are paying alot of the like of Peter Sutcliffe to sit in a cell watching Richard and Judy - hang him!

 

This raises another question entirely which I hadn't yet considered. Personally I am against the death penalty but let us say that it is now in place. What method do you consider to be the most humane? Why do you think this would be the most appropriate method?

 

I do not want to hijack this thread and so I do not expect replies to these questions. I just put them here because I had these thoughts when reading this thread and the replies.

[JJonas]

EDIT: And if we are worrid about Vennables being free in our society, then what about the other one - Thompson - who remains free and annonamous?

 

If time in a rehabilitation centre has failed for Venables it appears to have worked (so far) for Thompson.

 

Whatever he has done it obviously needs to go to trial and he should be tried under his new name if he is found guilty then it should be revealed. Too much speculation now and he risks getting off on a technicality and that would be an injustice.

 

Interesting article from the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7365479/Jon-Venables-is-no-longer-the-guilty-boy-who-killed-James-Bulger.html

Edited March 7, 2010 by JJonas

[JJonas]

This raises another question entirely which I hadn't yet considered. Personally I am against the death penalty but let us say that it is now in place. What method do you consider to be the most humane? Why do you think this would be the most appropriate method?.

 

They did a documentary about this a few years ago the method they came up with was oxygen deprivation using an decompression chamber, but this raised another issue many of the people who were pro death penalty thought this was too nice a way to go and that they should suffer.

 

see BBC - Horizon - How to Kill a Human Being

[tmcd35]

They did a documentary about this a few years ago the method they came up with was oxygen deprivation using an decompression chamber, but this raised another issue many of the people who were pro death penalty thought this was too nice a way to go and that they should suffer.

 

I think to make anyone suffer would make us as bad us they were for commiting the crime in the first place. If the death penalty was ever reintroduced then it should be applied as humanly as possible.

[localzuk]

If time in a rehabilitation centre has failed for Venables it appears to have worked (so far) for Thompson.

 

Whatever he has done it obviously needs to go to trial and he should be tried under his new name if he is found guilty then it should be revealed. Too much speculation now and he risks getting off on a technicality and that would be an injustice.

 

Interesting article from the Telegraph Jon Venables is no longer the guilty boy who killed James Bulger - Telegraph

 

Interesting article, and quite true really. 17 years is a long time, and people do change. I am certainly not the same person I was 17 years ago, that's for sure. What is the purpose of the outcry to release this man's name? It isn't in the interests of justice, that's for sure. It is as the author of that article states - some sort of blood lust, some pent up hatred and anger. Surely that sort of behaviour is not the behaviour of civilised people?

 

They did a documentary about this a few years ago the method they came up with was oxygen deprivation using an decompression chamber, but this raised another issue many of the people who were pro death penalty thought this was too nice a way to go and that they should suffer.

 

see BBC - Horizon - How to Kill a Human Being

 

Allowing someone on death row, if it exists wherever, to 'suffer' is wrong - it reduces the justice system to a system of revenge. Lowering the system to the level that of the perpetrator.

[tmcd35]

Surely that sort of behaviour is not the behaviour of civilised people?

 

Alas, I am sure history has shown time and again the behaviour of 'civilised' people.

[localzuk]

What I don't understand are the two different personalities I've been fed.

 

The Gov says he had a homosexual partner, studied art and went into the army - a rehabilitated person you might say.

 

The tabloids say something completely different to that. Allegations of drink and drug abuse, working as a bouncer and these latest allegations.

 

The thing is, we won't be given the whole story by anyone - the media will wish to present him as an evil demon sent by Satan, as this will sell... The government will want to present him as a reformed character, to bolster the image of the judicial system as an effective rehabilitator.

 

The likelihood is, its somewhere in between the 2.

[maark]

The original crime was horrific yes but don't forget they were only ten years old at the time and you do not know what family background they were brought up in. You cannot treat it in the same way as a crime committed by an adult.

Most of this is media witch hunt to sell papers as others have said.

[tmcd35]

I fear too much information is already out in the public domain. If you find yourself on jury service with a 27 year old white male defendant charged with possing child porn of grade 4 nature, is homosexual and used to be in the army - would you be prejudice in your verdict?

[CSNM-Carl]

Me too. It seems everything is hyped-up by the media these days. What ever happened to just reporting the news impartially?

 

I agree, especially when some of them use Facebook groups as the "source" of their information!

[The_Fool]

Personally I don't approve of "youth custody" and I believe that the age of criminal responsibility should be defined by the time when the "responsible adult" decides that the child is mature enough to, and therefore allowed to, make their own decisions.

 

Crimes should be judged and sentanced without taking the age of the offender into account - if children are allowed in a public place unnacompanied then the adults that allow them to be there are deeming them criminally responsible and they should be tried as adults whatever age they are. I think it's the only way to defeat hoodie culture.

 

As for capital punishment, that's more difficult... maybe a "death row" for a minimum of 10 or 20 years would be effective, to give time for all evidence to come out before execution.